Right To Reply #2

Never let it be said that SWSL is not “hip to the beat” or “with it”. A mere month and a half after this year’s event comes a feature on the Glastonbury Festival, the second in the Right To Reply series. (If you’re wondering what this is all about, or would like to read the first in the series, about nationalism and football, then click here.) Apologies to Paul and Simon for my slackness, but better late than never, as they say…

The subject: Glastonbury

The protagonists:
Ben – your host
Paul - author of 1000 Shades Of Grey
Simon - the man behind one of the web’s finest music blogs No Rock & Roll Fun

Ben: These days, the summer is packed full of music festivals, and the festival-goer is a consumer afforded a comparative wealth of choice in terms of venue and entertainment. This year, in addition to the established two or three day festivals – Leeds / Reading, T In The Park, V – there have been a whole host of smaller gatherings, not to mention a number of alfresco supergigs from major acts like Red Hot Chili Peppers. Does all this mean that Glastonbury will start to lose its appeal? Or is it still “special” and “different”, as some performers and dewy-eyed hippies would have us believe?

Paul: I think Glastonbury is more than just a music festival. I couldn’t imagine going to any other festival and not seeing a band, but I could see people doing that at Glastonbury, because there is so much more on offer. That’s what sets it apart (well that and inaccessibility), and what makes it a special festival. The fact that it has always been held in what amounts to Michael Eavis’s back garden gives it a strange and comforting feel, which none of the other festivals could even hope to capture.

Ben: Since the superfence went up and Mean Fiddler took over the security arrangements, though, the endearing sense of eccentricity and homeliness that make it so unique seems to be fading.

Simon: Glastonbury isn't, of course, as good as it used to be. Nothing is, and even if it was, there'd be enough people who knew what it was like ages ago to point out the flaws and where it's all gone hideously wrong. It did used to have some sense of idealism about it, but the Eavises have realised that – for a quieter life – it's better to repackage and market an "idealism experience" than actually offer the real thing. And, to a certain extent, you can't blame them – what thanks did they get for letting travellers in for free? A massive pitched battle, misery for those people who had paid to get in as a bunch of crusties barged their way about because it was "their" festival, having to wait weeks for all the vans to leave their land after the festival was over. Who wouldn't decide it’s better to keep out the real tattoos and camper vans and fill the site instead with people with temporary henna tattoos and tents bought at John Lewis?

Ben: Some claim that Glastonbury is now nothing more than a Guardianista’s playground full of city types hell-bent on indulging in an orgiastic letting-off of steam through intoxication whilst pretending to take a passing interest in social justice issues. I’d say that might be the way things are headed, what with the VIP passes and separate camping area, but at the moment it’s still somewhat premature.

Paul: I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad think to have professionals attending, but it’s important to retain the mix – which I think Glasto does so well. It’s much more of a holistic experience and I think more of a family atmosphere exists. I can’t imagine the scenes of toilet burning rampage occurring, as they have done previously at Leeds.

Ben: If you wander off away from the main music stages and into the Green Fields in search of what’s known as “the real Glastonbury” (naturally whilst doing your level best to avoid jugglers) you can still see the festival’s legendary spirit of idealism in its purest form. By giving space to so many different stalls, the festival promotes innumerable worthy causes and schemes. This is what continues to set it apart from the crowd.

Paul: On the subject of politics, I think there is a strong case of preaching to the converted. I don’t think anything people say or do at Glastonbury is necessarily going to change anyone’s views, and those of a less liberal mindset would (I imagine) be quite happy to dismiss any political noises coming out of Glasto as “irrelevant hippy nonsense”.

Ben: Even someone like me who considers himself already a “convert” (though not necessarily a well-informed one) can begin to find all the consciousness-raising a bit relentless and exhausting, and some of the political idealism comes across as naïve and crude. But, of course, that’s very far from saying it’s irrelevant or wasted effort – even though all the left-wing idealism of the Green Fields sits uneasily with the corporate sponsorship from the likes of Budweiser, Orange and the Guardian. During this year’s ‘Meet The Festival-Going Public’ appearance, Eavis defended the deal with Budweiser by saying that they would need to satisfy the demand for beer anyway before claiming erroneously that they are not permitted to advertise – not seen the heavily-branded cardboard pint pots, then, Michael?

Simon: It wouldn't be so bad if Glastonbury didn't try to keep pretending that it was a hippie haven – everybody knows they're getting cash from Orange, so what's with all the coyness about admitting that it's just as sponsored as the Carling Weekend? They're proud that a portion of the ticket price goes to charity – but why so coy about how much the Mean Fiddler organisation is taking in return for their back-room work? What's the deal with all the tension between the organisers – who's really in charge now? The affable front man Michael Eavis, or MF's Melvin Benn and Vince Power?

Paul: Financial sponsorship of the festival is inevitable. Without it the cost of the ticket price would surely be enormous. Thinking about the costs of running Glasto (off the top of my head), you’ve got to pay for stages, crew, lighting, closing the farm for (probably at least) a month, the security, licenses, stewarding, clean up, buses to and from the train station, portaloos, as well as paying the bands (and their riders etc). In terms of income, apart from ticket sales and licensing the myriad of burger vans / beer sellers the only other income I can think of is sponsorship. Therefore, in order to keep costs down you can either accept the corporate pound, or scale back the festival and have less popular acts. Ultimately, I think a few sponsors’ banners are a small price to pay.

Ben: Perhaps corporate sponsorship is inevitable, then, and those of us who might look to Glastonbury as a real alternative to the heavily branded likes of V and Move should grudgingly face up to the fact that we’re living with our heads in the clouds. And perhaps they should scale back the festival anyway.

Simon: Part of the problem is that Glasto's just too large now. Even watching it on TV this year, there was just too much, too many demands on attention. The last time I went in the flesh, 1998, the rain was bad but what made it worse was the sheer numbers of people plodding, pissing, poking, shouting – there were more people than in any city in the West Country, and boy did it feel like it. The poor site couldn't cope; I was treading mud like water trying to stop myself from disappearing into the ground during Blur's set, wondering if I could face the queues for the toilets and queues for the showers and queues and queues and... I realised I wasn't having any fun at all. I dearly wanted to see Pulp play the next night, but being stuck crammed into a sea of mud with so many horrible people, it just wasn't worth it. Since then, lead by Mean Fiddler, the approach has been to cram more people in, on the basis that the only way to ensure people will be safe from the dangers of overcrowding was by expensive security measures. To pay for which, they had to sell more tickets. And more people means more stuff. Too many stages, too many people, too many acts, too many sponsors. What would really make Glastonbury regain its spark would be if it regained its human scale.

Ben: I don’t feel that overcrowding has been so much of a problem over the past three years, certainly in comparison with 2000, the last year before Mean Fiddler’s involvement and the introduction of the superfence. Crime is without doubt down as a result, and that can only be a good thing. But, of course, what cannot be controlled are the elements, and, writing as a veteran of both 1998 and this year, there’s no denying that it can take extraordinary mental fortitude and resilience to soldier on through the mud and enjoy yourself regardless. Thankfully, for those who can’t face the possibility of apocalyptic conditions (or the prospect of redialing for hours on end without securing a ticket for the event in the first place), there’s always the BBC coverage which can be enjoyed from the comfort of your own conspicuously mud-free living room.

Paul: The BBC does its best to capture the essence of Glasto, and I think the reason they devote more time to it than any other festival (particular on the TV) is because there is more to it than simply the music. Whilst I’m sick of seeing the same druid talk about the ley-lines every year, that element of the festival (and the people it attracts) still has an influence on the nature of the beast, and will (I hope) always prevent it from completely selling out. Generally the BBC does a good job – it’s impossible to give you a real taste of what the festival is about, because for everyone who goes their experiences all differ slightly (eg someone I know describes her only memory of Glastonbury as crawling on the floor through the dance tent one year!). That said they do make a good attempt at bringing the wider festival into the public consciousness.

Ben: Even if it can only give the viewer a flavour of what it’s like to be there, that’s all most would want. The real frustration is confined to those who wanted to be there but who have been unsuccessful in getting tickets and consequently have to sit there watching it unfold without them. Having had the good fortune to attend for the past few years, that might well be me next June.